Majestic Mfg. Co. v. Majestic Electric Appliance Co., 10731.
| Citation | 172 F.2d 862 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 10731.,10731. |
| Parties | MAJESTIC MFG. CO. v. MAJESTIC ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., Inc. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Estill E. Ezell and Edmund C. Rogers, both of St. Louis, Mo. (Estill E. Ezell and Edmund C. Rogers, both of St. Louis, Mo., and Hubert E. Evans and Lloyd L. Evans, both of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
Bruce B. Krost, of Cleveland Ohio (George V. Woodling and Bruce B. Krost, both of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before SIMONS, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, plaintiff below in a suit for trade-mark infringement and unfair competition, appeals from a judgment of dimissal upon a record which shows little or no controversy in the controlling facts recited by the court in its memorandum opinion and here summarized.
The appellant for more than 50 years has manufactured coal and gas stoves and ranges and a limited number of related items. It had, before the last war, fabricated electric plates that were to be used in connection with some of its coal and wood ranges, and had applied to them, as to its stoves and ranges, its trade-mark "Majestic." The appellee had embodied the word "Majestic" in its corporate name since its incorporation in 1944. It manufactures and sells electric irons and toasters of the breakfast table type. It is a corporation wholly owned by the Dominion Electric and Mfg. Co., Inc., and its irons bear the mark "Dominion" and on the bottom of the toasters the name "Dominion Electric and Mfg. Co." is stamped. When its appliances are shipped the master cartons bear the legend, "From Majestic Electric Appliance Co., Inc., Galion, Ohio."
Thus it will be seen that there is no specific competition between the parties, and we agree with the court below that the trade-mark is not original, arbitrary or fanciful and so a "strong mark" coming within the principle of such cases as Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co., 2 Cir., 247 F. 407, L.R.A.1918C, 1039, certiorari denied 245 U.S. 672, 38 S.Ct. 222, 62 L.Ed. 540; Eastman v. Kodak Cycle Co., 15 R.P.C. 105; and France Milling Co., Inc., v. Washburn-Crosby Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 268 U.S. 706, 45 S. Ct. 640, 69 L.Ed. 1168, but rather that it calls for an application of the principle that where trade-marks are merely suggestive or descriptive they are weak marks affording protection to the owners only in the narrow and restricted field in which they have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Air-Flo Co.
...183 F.2d 969, 972-973 (9th Cir. 1950), or is merely a suggestive or descriptive trademark, see Majestic Mfg. Co. v. Majestic Electric Appliance Co., Inc., 172 F.2d 862 (6th Cir. 1949)." In John O. Butler Co. v. Oral B Co., 185 USPQ 594 (N.D.Ill.1975) Judge McLaren "The rule is well stated i......
-
Curtis-Stephens-Embry Co. v. Pro-Tek-Toe Skate Stop Co.
...v. Federal Television Corp., 2 Cir., 180 F.2d 250; Brown & Bigelow v. B. B. Pen Co., 8 Cir., 191 F.2d 939; Majestic Mfg. Co. v. Majestic Electric App. Co., 6 Cir., 172 F.2d 862; Hiram Walker & Sons v. Penn-Maryland Corp., 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 836. For the reasons stated, the judgment will be mod......
-
National Tuberculosis Ass'n v. SUMMIT CTY. T. & H. ASS'N
...the broad protection of a "strong mark". Majestic Mfg. Co. v. Majestic Electric Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, 1948, 79 F.Supp. 649, affirmed 6 Cir., 1948, 172 F.2d 862. It was not originated by the plaintiff, and admittedly has had wide use and historical Nor is the evidence persuasive that the double......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Cadillac Marine & Boat Co.
...1934) 71 F.2d 766, 767; American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U.S. 372, 46 S.Ct. 160, 70 L.Ed. 317; Majestic Mfg. Co. v. Majestic Elec. Appl. Co., Inc., (CCA 6, 1949) 172 F.2d 862; Dwinell-Wright Co. v. National Fruit Co., (CCA 1, 1944) 140 F. 2d 618; and Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. ......
-
Chapter VI. Selected legal opinions of the secretariats of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations
...117 F.2d 294 (1940). 44Scott v. Mego International Inc., 519 F. Supp. 1128 (1981). 45Majestic Mfg. Co. v. Majestic Elec. Appliance Co., 172 F.2d 862 (1949). 46Scott v. Mego International Inc., 519 F. Supp. 1129 (1981) (holding that the weaker the mark, the less protection it will be afforde......